Remote work is no longer a perk. The COVID-19 pandemic proved that, for many employees, productivity is not tied to a desk in the office. But, while the workplace has gone borderless, employment law has not. Employers with out-of-state remote workers cannot afford to assume the laws of their home state (or the states where they have offices) are the only laws that matter. Understanding those obligations before making employment decisions impacting remote workers can help employers avoid compliance pitfalls and costly mistakes.
California applies a strict presumption against extraterritorial application of the California statute that governs employment discrimination, the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”). Recently, in Saberin v. Alation, Inc., 122 Cal. App. 5th 165, 180 (Cal. Ct. App. July 30, 2026), the appellate court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff Saberin’s petition to vacate the arbitration award of a Utah-based remote employee’s claims following his termination after a Florida arrest, holding that neither he nor the arrest had any connection to California and that the termination decision was made by decision-makers in Illinois (the employer, Alation, was headquartered in California). The employer’s California-based HR partner had given those decision-makers “input,” but the arbitrator deemed that connection a “tenuous thread” insufficient to establish a California nexus, and the Court of Appeal agreed, leaving open whether more substantial California decision-making could change the result. Id. at 180-81. This mirrors California’s approach to wage law in Sullivan v. Oracle Corp., 51 Cal. 4th 1191 (2011), and McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc., 47 Cal. App. 5th 243 (2020): the state’s protections can reach nonresidents working in California, but a ruling extending one statute does not automatically extend to the next.
New York courts look to where the impact of an employment decision landed, not where the decision was made. The Court of Appeals has rejected the argument that a New York-headquartered employer automatically triggers the New York’s State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL) and/or the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) simply because a New York executive picked up the phone and did the firing. See Hoffman v. Parade Publications, 15 N.Y.3d 285, 907 N.Y.S.2d 145 (2010). Hoffman was a Georgia resident who worked out of his employer’s Atlanta office, served accounts only in southern and southwestern states, and was informed of his termination by a phone call placed from the employer’s New York City headquarters. The Court held that even his attendance at quarterly meetings in New York and the fact that his group was managed from the New York office amounted to no more than a “tangential connection” insufficient to satisfy the impact requirement. Hoffman, 15 N.Y.3d at 288, 292. In short, a nonresident who works and lives entirely outside New York cannot manufacture New York coverage out of a headquarters phone call. However, the New York Court of Appeals went a different direction in Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., 41 N.Y.3d 446, 453 (2024), holding that a nonresident applicant who sought a New York-based position could invoke New York’s anti-discrimination laws despite never working in the state. The court found that the alleged discriminatory denial of a New York job causes an injury that the applicant “felt” in New York and deprives the state and city of the applicant’s potential economic and civic contributions.
Pennsylvania sits closer to California’s end. Federal courts applying the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”) have twice held that its protections do not reach an employee who neither lives nor works in Pennsylvania, even where the employer or its decision-makers are based there. The PHRA is silent on the point, so both courts turned to its declaration of policy protecting the “inhabitants of the Commonwealth,” reasoning the Legislature meant to protect residents and workers within the state, not employees whose only tie is a supervisor’s location. In Taylor v. Rodale, Inc., 2004 WL 1196145, at *3-4 (E.D. Pa. May 27, 2004), a Georgia resident was not permitted to sue under the PHRA merely because his Pennsylvania-based supervisor made the challenged employment decisions. In Blackman v. Lincoln Nat’l Corp., 2012 WL 6151732, at *3, *6 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2012), an Illinois-based employee likewise could not invoke the PHRA despite her employer’s Pennsylvania headquarters. The relevant inquiry is where the employee works, not the employer. However, Blackman left open whether the PHRA protects an employee who works in Pennsylvania but lives elsewhere. Id. at *3 n.6.
New Jersey draws no bright line. Its Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) extends to out-of-state employees as a threshold matter, but that only opens the door. Courts then weigh where the conduct occurred, where the relationship was centered, and which state has the greater policy interest. Calabotta v. Phibro Animal Health Corp., 460 N.J. Super. 38, 55-56, 64-65 (App. Div. 2019). The plaintiff in Calabotta worked and lived in Illinois but was passed over for a New Jersey-based promotion and then terminated. New Jersey’s Appellate Division held that different laws might apply to different claims. New Jersey law governed the failure-to-promote claim because the position was based in New Jersey, id. at 71-72, while the wrongful-termination claim was remanded for further development of the facts bearing on the full multi-factor test, id. at 72-74. The court noted that New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (“CEPA”), its whistleblower statute, has likewise been read elsewhere to reach out-of-state plaintiffs. Id. at 65 n.10.
These four states are not exhaustive, but they illustrate the range of approaches employers are likely to encounter: a strong presumption against extraterritorial application, an impact-based test, statutory silence generally resolved against coverage, and an open-ended balancing test. The key takeaway is that an employer whose home-state law stops at the border is not necessarily insulated from a remote worker’s home-state law, which may reach the same conduct under a different standard. Before making significant decisions affecting remote employees, employers should identify where the employee works, understand how that state’s law applies, and determine which jurisdiction’s standards may govern. Attorneys at Obermayer can help employers navigate this patchwork by evaluating jurisdictional exposure before decisions are made and developing defensible practices for a workforce that spans state lines.
The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice, is not a substitute for legal counsel, and should not be relied on as such. For legal advice or answers to specific questions, please contact one of our attorneys.
Salena is an attorney in Obermayer’s Labor and Employment Department. She represents employers in all aspects of labor and employment law, including employment litigation, employment–related agreements, wage and hour matters, executive compensation,...
Read More by Author
